The latest WIA legislation, HR 4271, was introduced on December 10, 2009 by Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), John Kline (R-MN), Howard McKeon (R-CA), Phil Roe (R-TN), Mark Souder (R-IN), and Addison Wilson (R-SC).  As a Democrat, it pains me to ask for support for a fully GOP sponsored bill, but I believe it’s a move we need to make in this economic environment.  The Stimulus Bill didn’t work.  Extending unemployment isn’t fixing things either.  We need a better, long-lasting solution.

I am not by any means arguing that I agree with every word of HR 4271; the bill could use some work.  But the principle behind the bill is dead on.  We live in a world of rapid technological advances, rapid globalization, and rapid commoditization of products.  The competition is biting at our heels.  As a Nation, we have to do more to keep the workforce trained and ready for the future.  As programming and IT jobs move to places like India and Pakistan to increase cost effectiveness, the middle-class workers losing those jobs need help.  They are the people who don’t want unemployment.  Let’s face it.  They can’t pay their mortgages and feed their kids on a paltry unemployment check, and they don’t want to.  They would rather work three jobs than accept a handout.  Aren’t those people worth the investment?  Won’t those people turn their gratitude into contributions to others?  Let’s invest the government’s money—OUR tax dollars—in something that will actually pay off for a change.

I encourage you first to acquaint yourself with HR 4271.  Then, I encourage you to take the advice of ASTD blogger Michael Ferraro, “If you are in a Congressional district of a member on the House Education and Labor Committee, you should reach out and talk to them about WIA and why it should be reauthorized. “  Get involved.  Make it better, and help get it passed.  This a bill that can really help middle-class Americans.  As JED Bartlet once said ( ), “education is the silver bullet,” and Americans need re-training to fulfill the workforce roles of the 21st Century.

I was raised in a middle class, conservative family in the age of Reagan.  I was instilled with a strong work ethic and a belief that one should never ask for a handout.  I was also raised with a strong Christian belief that it is our human obligation to help one another regardless of how much money you have in the bank.  I was taught that there is no greater honor than to serve your country whether as a soldier or as a civil servant.  I believe in hard work, freedom, social justice, and patriotism.  If that makes me radical, idealistic, or naive, then so be it.  At least I can sleep at night and look myself in the mirror in the morning.

So why am I pissed at the GOP?  For a lot of reason, none of which have anything to do with the Obama Administration or Tea Parties!  Here are my top three…

1.  The GOP used to believe in freedom: religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of choice.  No one ever said freedom would be easy.  You have to accept that freedom means someone who believes in everything you hate has a right to stand on a rooftop and preach that which you abhor.  It will make your blood boil.  It will also spark debates, real debates.  The kind of debates that make history.  It is the most essential element of our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, and our History.  Now the GOP stands for freedom only for white, evangelical Christians.  Hardly freedom for all.
2. The GOP used to believe in hard work, which included a healthy respect for an individual who worked his/her tail off to get into an “elitist” college and then worked his/her behind off getting that “elitist” degree.  If you don’t think getting into an “elitist” college is hard work, talk to a few people who did and ask how many high school parties they went to.  They didn’t.  They were too busy doing homework, sports, and community service, because that’s what it takes.  It’s an achievement to be admired not to thumb your nose at.
3. The GOP used to believe intellect and class mattered.  Example: Sarah Palin.  Need I say more?  Of all the women in the GOP… Smart, conservative, classy powerhouses of femininity and strength.  The kind of women you want your little girls to look up to, why on earth would they choose Sarah Palin???  She doesn’t know the powers of the Vice President are clearly enumerated in the Constitution and isn’t utterly ashamed that she doesn’t.  She has less class in her entire person than my mother has in her right pinkie toe.  News flash…  An argument with David Letterman is NOT good debate.  If you can’t rise about the insults of David Letterman, please go home and make room for serious people.

If the GOP wants me back, they need to be the party that has always upheld the principles of our founders.  They need to offer tax cuts that help REAL working people.  They needs to make it easier for middle-class people to send their kids to college, buy a house, and live their lives.  Above all else…  They need to stop telling me what to teach MY child, what to do in MY bedroom, what I can and can’t do with MY body , and what I can and can’t do with MY money.  If it doesn’t hurt you or anyone else, LEAVE ME ALONE!  Legislate on what is within your constitutional purview and let me decide the rest.  Start debating the issues and take a little pride in your country’s history.  Believe it or not, I am one of your constituents, and I am NOT stupid.

As for Tea Parties…  If you’re point is freedom, preach it my friends!  I may not agree with you on the finer points, but it’s still—for the moment—a free country!

 /rant

Tanner disagrees with the President with respect to the solution, arguing for a free market approach to healthcare reform.  He believes the only way to reduce healthcare costs is to trust the “time-tested building blocks of marketplace efficiency: competition and choice.”  He describes his plan:

There are two key components to any free-market healthcare reform. First, we need to move away from a system dominated by employer-provided health insurance and instead make health insurance personal and portable, controlled by the individual rather than government or an employer. (…)  The other part of effective healthcare reform involves increasing competition among both insurers and health providers. Current regulations establish monopolies and cartels in both industries.

The plan Tanner proposes offers a viable alternative to the government-controlled system the Obama administration is proposing, and Tanner’s analysis correctly diagnoses the main failings of our current system.

As insurance companies gain more control in out healthcare system, costs continue to increase and patient care continues to decrease.  The Prescription American plan the President has offered has many physicians deeply concerned that the stranglehold insurance companies currently have the on the healthcare system will only be replaced by government red tape, producing a two-tiered system, in which only those who know how to work the bureaucracy will receive the superior healthcare our country could be offering to so many more.  In addition, most taxpayers are concerned—and rightly so IMHO—that the cost of the proposed healthcare reform will be more than the average taxpayer can handle.  Finally, most Americans chafe at the prospect of removing choices from the hands of citizens because, simply put, it is un-America.  Anything that reduces our liberties is inherently un-American.

A free market solution certainly increases our choices and increases the possibility that we—the people—will have more control over what does and does not succeed.  There are, however, a few caveats.  Government intervention will be required to break down the state systems currently crippling the possibility of interstate competition in health insurance.  Also, government oversight does offer an opportunity to ensure ethical practices in that interstate competition particularly with respect to a minimum level of coverage.  We must accept that government-mandated coverage can actually be a good thing when driven by physicians—experts in the field—and approved by the majority of citizens.  One example of this is government-mandate coverage of mammograms.  Yes, it drove up premium costs, but the measure is saving lives and reducing health care costs in the long run.  Finally, we must continue to try and cover those who cannot cover themselves.  By that, I am not advocating handouts for those who choose not to care for themselves, but I am arguing that children shouldn’t be punished for the bad judgment of their parents and those incapable of supporting themselves are not disposable. 

When it’s all said in done, we must look to physicians to assess problesm and to offer reasonable solutions.  While there are some who went into medicine for the glory or the money, the vast majority of our healthcare professionals have a genuine desire to save lives.

First, I’d like to thank our founding fathers, some of the greatest men in the history of Western Civilization.  Thank you for risking your life and liberty for ours by signing the Declaration of Independence and following it through.  Thank you for dreaming of a utopia in which all men are created equal and the basic right of all people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is self-evident.  You set us on the path of a grand experiment ever-reaching for a better tomorrow.  We aren’t there yet, but we’re still working on it, and we’ve made a lot of progress.

Second, I’d like to thank one of my heroes James Madison.  Thank you for lending your brilliance to birth of our government.  Your understanding of humanity’s strengths and weaknesses, of the dangers of mobs and individuals, and of the nature of government itself has been unmatched in US history.  You were the architect of our most precious document—a living testament to your genius.  It is as you intended.  It is a work in progress.  We hope it makes you proud.

Last, I’d like to thank my grandfather and all the veterans that proceeded and followed. (My grandfather served as a forward observer in the 4^th Marine Division in the South Pacific in World War II.)  Papa, you and those you served with are a reminder “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson).  You offered your blood for the liberty of not only our nation but also the liberty of other nations.  You are our greatest asset.

To all of you I pledge to never forget that my right to vote has been bought with the blood of others, that I am blessed to live in a nation in which the citizens have the awesome ability to overthrow the government by peaceful means every two years, and that every citizen—not just the citizen I agree with—has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I pledge to honor my responsibility to question my government, to educate myself, and to actively participate in the political process.  May my life honor your sacrifices and contributions.

Happy Independence Day everyone!  God bless America!

There are two major issues with Rob’s argument that need more development: the broken tax promise of former President George H. W. Bush and campaign promises in general.  I think I sufficiently expressed my feelings about the Cap and Trade, so I’ll resist the urge to get on that soap box again.

During the 1988 election, then Vice President Bush made the famous promise “Read my lips.  No new taxes.”  Sadly, this broken promise contributed significantly to his unsuccessful bid for re-election.  Does anyone remember how it actually happened?  Or is this going to be yet another misrepresented, mangled piece of history?

Bush’s promise, which was reduced to a sound bite, encompassed more than tax rates.  Bush presented a position of old-fashioned fiscal responsibility.  He was determined to lower the deficit, to move us down the path toward a balanced budget, and to complete both tasks without increasing congressional spending.  Does anyone remember his record on the first two counts?  Despite facing a Senate and House dominated by Democrats, he resisted tax increases and began forcing Congress to fund programs before instituting them.  His policies were sound, and he laid the groundwork for a balanced budget and deficit reduction.  After numerous refusals, Bush finally conceded to an increase in taxes that was far below what Congress had wanted.  He compromised as all good leaders must.  For this, he was crucified.  I was in high school at the time and was so impressed with the progress he made in what seemed like an impossible battle that I voted for his son in the hopes that he would do the same.  A wasted vote but a topic for another discussion.

As for campaign promises in general, let’s get a grip people.  Campaigns are high with rhetoric and promises.  They pull at our heart strings and strike fear into our souls.  I cannot recall a single campaign in my lifetime in which a candidate was elected and fulfilled all his/her campaign promises.  Even the President, as powerful as he is, is only one man.  He does not have free reign to legislate as he chooses.  Fortunately, our founding fathers had better sense than to design a system in which he could!

It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where politicians told us the truth 100% of the time, and every campaign promise was something we could take to the bank.  But we don’t.  We won’t.  This is our reality.  The sooner we accept it, the sooner we can move on to judging officials by what they’re doing instead of what they said they would and to electing officials based on their track records rather than their rhetoric.

Again…  Thank you Rob and Tabitha for bringing some smarts to the discussion!

We—meaning liberal Democrats—have a tendency to point to the rich and claim the problem is all their doing; we claim they have been socially irresponsible and morally reprehensible.  But that’s generally a copout.  We have been as much to blame as the other side.

There should be a clearly-defined minimum standard of living for all Americans, but how do people interpret that as everyone deserves their own house and a Cadillac Escalade?  Why should someone who chooses not pursue an education and work hard to have a higher paying career have the same things as those that do?  Why shouldn’t people have to work for things?  Everyone deserves to have a home, but that doesn’t necessarily mean a house, yard, etc. 

We seem to have lost the personal responsibility aspect of the American Dream.  Where has our work ethic gone?  Where has our desire to be responsible for our own future gone?  Yes, there are poor people who are poor because they’ve had a run of back luck or never had a chance.  There are no excuses for not helping those people.  But what about the millions who seem to think they’re entitled to whatever they want without having to earn anything?  Is it on those of us who do work hard to support them?  I think not.

First the facts.  Most reputable scientists agree that we are witnessing a global warming trend.  The math doesn’t lie.  Global mean temperatures have been increasing.  The trouble lies in the cause.  Most reputable scientists are hesitant to claim that humans are responsible for the climate change. In fact, most agree that it could be a century before we have enough evidence to determine whether or not this is simply a normal cyclical warming or a trend cause by human interference.  In addition, if humans are causing global warming, simply reducing carbon emissions would not be enough to reverse the trend.  We would also have to combat the massive deforestation taking place below the equator and the increasing emissions of developing nations, among many other factors.  Regardless, we won’t have any viable scientific answers during my lifetime, so why do politicians insist on having this argument?

There are far bigger issues at stake here.  First, the world will run out of oil eventually.  It is a non-renewable energy source.  The country that develops the best alternatives to oil will have an upper hand in global economics in the century ahead of us.  Why wouldn’t we want to be that country?

Second, respiratory diseases are repeatedly linked to the pollution we create through cars, industry, electricity, etc.  If you believe car exhaust is safe, please take a minute to suck on your tailpipe and see how you feel.  I can save you the trouble.  It isn’t good for you or anyone else.  Neither are any of the other pollutants we spill into the air every day.

If we’re going to argue that the government has an obligation to protect citizens’ rights to clean air, clean water, etc., then we should be arguing for policies that work and for debates that focus on the real issues not the possibility that we might find out fifty years from now that we contributed to global warming.

The continued focus on the ridiculous global warming debate diverts attention from real issues and makes cap and trade policies seem reasonable in the face of imminent danger.  The reality of cap and trade policies includes job losses and higher energy costs for the consumer.  Socially responsible businesses actively pursue cleaner energy and better environmental policies.  Cap and trade policies only make it more difficult for these companies to do business.  The socially irresponsible companies simply pick up and move their operations to parts of the world where less stringent regulations exist.  History has demonstrated this over and over again.  If the purpose of cap and trade is to reduce global pollution, how does driving industry out of the United States help?

Also, when companies are more heavily taxed, who ends up footing the bill?  No one really believes that companies are going to bear profit losses do they?  We all know that additional expenses will be passed on to us.  In an already weak economy, does it make sense to burden the consumer any more?  Does it make sense to drive out business? 

I don’t buy that our Congressmen and Congresswomen are stupid.  They didn’t get where they are by being stupid.  But as long as Americans are more focused on the death of Michael Jackson than the policies being debated and voted on by our legislators, Congress will continue to make policies in their own best interests rather than our best interests.  It’s time we demand real change focused on improving our environment for us and future generations, designed to put us at the forefront of alternative energy sales in the next century, and—most importantly—backed by responsible, reasonable, practical policies.

One of the medical professionals has seen a marked decline in patient care over the last ten to fifteen years as the government has attempted to reform medical care.  While the best doctor’s have worked hard to combat this trend, many have simply abandoned the possibility that healthcare decisions will be made by qualified doctors and their patients, providing the best possible healthcare for the individual situation.  More governmental intervention in our healthcare system could intensify this trend.

Everyone knows that our healthcare system needs help, but turning healthcare over to the government probably isn’t the answer.  Just as we’ve seen with the education system, taking the ability to fix our healthcare system out of the hands of those who have the most invested in the system, those who know the most about the system—our healthcare professionals—and placing in the hands of lawmakers is a dangerous proposal.  If we want a viable solution, perhaps we should be looking to the AMA to advise us on the best possible solutions.